1.This
appeal by special leave is directed against the final judgment and order dated
2nd December, 2005 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in
Criminal Appeal No. 4703 of 2004 whereby the Hon'ble High Court dismissed the
appeal preferred by the appellants and thereby maintaining the conviction of
the appellants under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (for short 2 `IPC')
with modification of sentence of death by substituting it to imprisonment for
life. The conviction and sentences awarded by the learned Additional Sessions
Judge, Fast Track Court No. 4, Meerut against the appellants for the offences
punishable under Sections 147, 148, 307 read with 149, IPC have been confirmed.

Hence this appeal.

2.The
main question that arises for our consideration in the instant appeal is
whether the courts below committed any serious error in convicting the
appellants for the offence punishable under Section 302? Whether the courts
below committed any error in convicting the appellants for the offences
punishable under Sections 147, 148, 307 read with Section 149? Whether the
findings concurrently recorded by the courts below to convict the appellants
under the said provisions are so perverse and ex-facie unacceptable and therefore
require our interference in this appeal preferred with leave granted under
Article 136 of the Constitution of India? 3

3.It
is fairly well settled and needs no restatement that this Court should not
embark upon a reappreciation of the evidence, when both the Sessions Court and
the High Court have agreed in their appreciation of the evidence and arrived at
concurrent findings of fact. This Court time and again held that it is always
necessary to bear in mind the limited scope of the proceedings under Article
136 of the Constitution of India which cannot be converted into a third appeal
on facts. Mere errors in appreciation of the evidence are not enough to attract
this Court's `invigilatory jurisdiction'. It is settled law that this Court may
interfere in rare and exceptional cases where there is some manifest illegality
or grave and serious miscarriage of justice.

4.We
shall bear this settled legal position in mind and proceed to consider whether
the findings of fact reached by the courts below concurrently on appreciation
of evidence suffer from any error of law or have resulted in 4 miscarriage of
justice requiring our interference in this appeal. Whether the view taken by
the High Court on reappreciation of the evidence to agree with the appreciation
of evidence by the Sessions Court is so perverse resulting in miscarriage of
justice.?

5.In
all there were 11 accused sent up for trial before the learned Sessions Judge,
the Sessions Court, however, acquitted five accused and found them not guilty
of charges framed against them. Accused Rajneesh is absconding. Accused Aman
Singh did not file any appeal.

Hence, in this
appeal, we are concerned with conviction and sentence of only the present
appellants i.e. accused nos. 1 to 4.

BACKGROUND FACTS

6.The
prosecution case in short is that an incident occurred on the intervening night
of 24/25th May, 1999 at about 12 O' clock in Lalpur village, Police Station
Bhawanpur, District Meerut. It is the case of the prosecution 5 that on that
intervening night the appellants along with other accused and two unknown
persons armed with country made pistols and rifle came to the village demanding
Ajab Singh (one of the deceased) to enter into a compromise with regard to a
case lodged by Ajab Singh complaining about his daughter's abduction on
5.11.1997 by Rajneesh and Vikram. The said case was pending in a court.

Apart from that case,
some other cases were also pending between the parties. Ajab Singh did not
agree for the proposal and enraged by adamant attitude of Ajab Singh, the
accused all of a sudden started indiscriminate firing from their weapons
resulting in death of Ajab Singh, Hari Singh @ Hariya and Geeta. Raj Pal
(PW-3), Veer Singh (PW-2) and Bala (PW-4) received injuries. The accused
threatened Kripal (PW-1) to kill him but he saved himself by hiding in a room
of his house. Aman Singh (A-5) threatened that nobody should go to the police
station and lodge any complaint and if any one dares to do so would also be
killed.

Kripal Singh (PW-1)
lodged the report in the early morning 6 at about 5.00 A.M in the Police
Station which is at a distance of about 4 kms. from the scene of occurrence.
After the registration of the first information report, Hukum Singh, SHO,
recorded the statement of the informant at the police station and thereafter
reached the place of occurrence. On his instructions Sub-Inspector - Sripal
Singh (PW-13) prepared the inquest memos. Recovery memos of blood stained and
plain earth, empty cartridges and bullets were also prepared. Site plan is
exhibited as Ka-17. The statements of inquest witnesses were recorded. The
statements of injured PWs -2, 3 and 4 were recorded at Lokpriya Hospital.
Thereafter the investigation was taken up by Jai Dev Arya (PW-11) and upon
completion of the investigation a charge sheet was filed against the
appellants.

7.The
post mortem on the dead bodies of Ajab Singh, Smt. Geeta and Hari Singh was
conducted by Dr. K.N. Tiwari (PW-8). He found the following ante-mortem
injuries on the person of the deceased Ajab Singh:

Bala (PW-4) are the
eye witnesses to the occurrence. PW-1 is the first informant and rest of them
are injured persons.

The whole prosecution
case turns upon the evidence of PWs- 1 to 4. The courts below did not find any
reason whatsoever to disbelieve their evidence. The courts found that there is
nothing on record to disbelieve their presence at the scene of offence. The
courts have meticulously examined and assessed their evidence and found the
same to be acceptable. On a careful consideration of the impugned judgment of
the High Court we have found that the conclusion to which the High Court
reached at against the 11 appellants is well sustained on the evidence on
record which requires no interference.

However, it will be
appropriate for us to consider the main submissions canvassed by Shri Dinesh
Dwivedi, learned senior counsel for the appellants. He submitted the following
points for our consideration:

i.There
was inordinate delay in lodging the report and the FIR itself came into
existence after consultations and deliberations. It was prepared in the police
station itself. This itself makes the whole prosecution case suspicious and
therefore it cannot be said that the prosecution has proved the case beyond reasonable
doubt.

ii.The
police did not record the names of the accused in the inquest report that was
prepared at the earliest point of time. There is no explanation as to why PW
1, 12 Kirpal Singh, did not disclose the names of all the accused at the time
of preparation of inquest.

iii.That
all the eyewitnesses are close relatives to the deceased and therefore, they
are interested witnesses, whose testimony cannot be relied on and made the sole
basis to hold the petitioners guilty of the charged offences.

iv.The
source of light mentioned in the FIR is moonlight and as well as electric bulb.
The Investigating Officer had mentioned the electric bulb at place `B' in the
site plan. But there was no electricity connection to the deceased Ajab Singh's
house. The witnesses could not have identified the appellants in the dead of
the night.

10.The
learned counsel for the State supported the judgment and submitted that the
concurrent findings of facts arrived at by the Courts below are based on
appreciation and reappreciation of evidence which cannot normally be interfered
with by this Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 136 of the
Constitution. There are no 13 exceptional and extraordinary circumstances
requiring any such interference in the present case.

11.Point
I : The incident had taken place in the midnight at about 12 O Clock. The
report was lodged by Kirpal Singh (PW 1) in the early morning at about 5.30
a.m. in the police station which is at a distance of about 4 or 5 kilometers
from the place of occurrence. Be it noted, three persons in the family were
killed by a group of persons armed with deadly weapons. The entire village was
terror stricken. One does not expect that under those circumstances someone to
rush to the police station and lodge the first information report.

PW1 (Kirpal Singh) in
his evidence in clear and categorical terms stated that at the relevant time,
he was present in his house situated in Lalpur, the deceased Ajab Singh was
none other than his nephew, his house is adjacent one to that of deceased Ajab
Singh's. He clearly identified the appellants who were armed with deadly
weapons and seen them committing the murderous attack on the deceased. He was
also threatened by the appellants and he saved himself by 14 hiding in a room
in his house. In the first information report itself it is stated that Ajab
Singh's daughter, Kumari Manju was abducted by Rajneesh (absconding) with the
help of his uncle Vikram; the abducted girl was recovered by the police and
handed over to deceased Ajab Singh. She was brought to Meerut for her medical
examination where she had committed suicide. The origin that led the present
incident is traceable to abduction of deceased Ajab Singh's daughter.

The appellants came
to insist that Ajab Singh should withdraw the said case and enter into a
compromise to which he refused.

Be it noted, the
first information report was lodged within 5 to 5= hours immediately after the
incident which by no stretch of imagination could be characterized as the
delayed one. Not only three persons died on the spot but PWs 2, 3 and 4 were
also seriously injured. In the circumstances, we are not inclined to agree with
the submissions made by the learned senior counsel that there was unexplained
delay in lodging the first information 15 report. Yet another aspect of the
matter: The first information report was not signed by PW 1 (Kirpal Singh). It
was scribed by one Ramveer on his dictation. The fact remains that the report
was received by the Station House Officer and the FIR was issued immediately
thereafter. It is of no consequence whether the first information report
contained his signature or not. There is no material available on record to
arrive at any conclusion that the first information report lodged by PW 1
itself was after some deliberations and consultations in the police station.
There is no such case made out by the appellants. In the circumstances, it is
not possible to agree with the submissions made by the learned senior counsel
that FIR was lodged after consultations and deliberations.

The evidence of PW 1
is clear and categorical which depicts the sequence of events. The Courts below
rightly placed reliance upon his evidence. An attempt was made before us to
point out certain minor discrepancies in his evidence to impeach the testimony
but in our opinion, the 16 minor inconsistencies, if any, are not of that
nature which makes us to disbelieve his evidence. The whole narration of the
incident is natural, the deceased Ajab Singh was none other than the nephew of
PW 1, living adjacent to his house, his presence at the relevant time is also
natural and there is nothing to disbelieve that he knew all the appellants
herein who participated in the attack in which three persons died on the spot
and PWs 2, 3 and 4 had received serious injuries.

12.Point
II : It appears from the record that the names of the accused and details of
weapons possessed by each one of the accused who participated in the assault
are not mentioned in the inquest report. The panchayatnamas (Ext. K 25 to K 27)
dated 25th May, 1999 were prepared in between 6.30 a.m. to 9.30 a.m. over the
dead bodies of the three deceased individuals. The inquest reports were
dispatched along with the copy of the first information report. PW 1 (Kirpal
Singh) who is the first informant and eyewitness to the incident is also one of
the witnesses to the 17 inquest reports. The first information report was
available with the investigating officer at the time of preparation of the
inquest reports. The mere fact that PW 1 did not repeat the names of all the
accused so as to be incorporated in the inquest reports, in our considered
opinion, is of no consequence. The purpose of preparation of inquest report is
to ascertain whether a person has died in some suspicious circumstances or an
unnatural death and as to the apparent cause of death. The inquest report need
not contain the details as to how the deceased were assaulted or who assaulted
them. The omission of names of the accused and the minute details of assault in
the inquest report itself is not enough to disbelieve the prosecution case. It
is fairly well settled and needs no restatement at our hands that the purpose
of holding an inquest is very limited, viz; to ascertain as to whether a person
has committed suicide or has been killed by any other or by an accident or has
died under circumstances raising a reasonable suspicion that some other person
has committed an offence. Section 174 18 of the Code of Criminal Procedure
does not mandate the investigating officer to mention the names of the assailants
in the inquest report. There is no other provision in law or practice requiring
the purpose to mention the names of the assailants and weapons possessed by
them in the inquest report. The omission thereof does not lead to any inference
to doubt the prosecution case. Such omissions are not fatal to the prosecution
case. It is settled principle that merely because the witnesses on the inquest
report who are also eyewitnesses did not give out the name of the accused
persons while describing the cause of death in the inquest report does not
render the presence of the eyewitnesses on 2 SCC 476]. It is unnecessary to
further dilate on this particular aspect of the matter. In the circumstances,
we are not inclined to agree with the submission that PW 1 was not an
eyewitness to the incident.

13.Point
III: It is true, PW 1 and PWs 2 to 4 and as well as the deceased are closely
inter related. PW 2 is Veer Singh who stated in his evidence that deceased Ajab
Singh was his maternal uncle. It is in his evidence that he was on the fateful
night sleeping under the neem tree and nearby the deceased Ajab Singh and his
wife Bala, grandfather Hari Singh and Rajpal were also sleeping. The appellants
and other accused along with two unknown persons reached there and all of them
were armed with country made pistols and one of the unknown persons was armed
with a rifle. It is in his evidence that he could recognize each one of the
appellants and other accused in the moonlight and electric light. His version
is more or less same as that of PW 1 who also speaks about the appellants
insisting the deceased Ajab Singh to compromise the abduction case, deceased
Ajab Singh told them that they could talk about it in the morning but Aman
Singh (A 5, who did not prefer any appeal against his conviction) insisted for
a compromise then and there.

Enraged by the same,
the appellants started indiscriminate 20 firing resulting in the death of Hari
Singh, Ajab Singh and Geetha on the spot. He himself was injured along with PWs
3 and 4.

PW 3 is one Rajpal
who is also an eyewitness to the occurrence. Ajab Singh was his nephew, he also
speaks about origin of the case that ultimately led to the attack on the
deceased and corroborates the version given by PWs 1 and 2 in all its respects.

PW 4 is Smt. Bala who
is none other than the wife of deceased Ajab Singh. She was sleeping on the
Chabutra on that fateful night along with her daughter Geetha and husband Ajab
Singh. She speaks about the appellants' presence at the scene of offence and
their insisting for a compromise in the abduction case. She specifically speaks
about the appellants' participation in the crime and indiscriminate firing by
the appellants resulting in death of her husband Ajab Singh, daughter Geetha
and father-in-law Hari Singh. It is in her evidence that PW 2 Veer Singh, PW 3
21 Rajpal also received injures along with her at the hands of the accused.

There cannot be any
iota of doubt that PWs 1, 2, 3 & 4 are natural witnesses to the occurrence.
The mere fact that they are related to each other itself is no ground to
discard their evidence unless something critical is brought to our notice that
all of them being interested witnesses were speaking falsely to implicate the
appellants. Who else would have been present at the scene of occurrence except
PWs 1 to 4? What is unnatural in the evidence of PWs 1 to 4 to disbelieve their
evidence? None. It is true that the evidence of relatives of the deceased is to
be carefully scrutinized and appreciated before resting the conclusions to
convict the accused in a given case. In the present case, the Sessions Court
properly appreciated the evidence and meticulously analyzed the same and the
High Court upon re-appreciation of evidence concurred with the view taken by
the Sessions Court. Moreover, the very fact that PWs 2 to 4 were injured in the
incident establishes their presence at the scene of 22 offence. We do not find
any reason to disbelieve their evidence only on the ground that they are
interrelated to each other and also to the deceased.

14.Point
IV : This aspect of the matter has been dealt with elaborately by the Courts
below. PW 1 stated in the first information report itself that he had seen and
identified the accused persons in the moonlight and "in the light of
electricity". There is no dispute whatsoever that the appellants and other
accused barring two were all previously known to PWs 1 to 4. The occurrence did
not take place all of a sudden. The accused after reaching the spot insisted
for a compromise of a previous case, obviously some exchange of words took
place between the deceased and the accused and the parties must have come close
to each other. The appellants were not strangers to any of the witnesses. The
evidence of PWs 1 to 4 is consistent with what has been stated by PW 1 in the
very first information report that the accused were identified in the moonlight
and electric light.

In the site plan
also, the existence of electric bulb at place `B' is shown. In this regard the
trial Court dealt with the matter very elaborately and observed:

"...And at place
`B' the bulb is stated and this house is of PW-1 Kirpal Singh and where the
position of the bulb is shown the Chabutara of the occurrence is situated just
in front of in after the way (rad) towards north side. Therefore, to identify
in one light of this bulb is quite natural and there is no contradiction in the
statement of any of the witnesses on this point. All the witnesses have stated
to have identified the accused in the electric light and moon light. Also otherwise,
the houses of accused persons are situated beside the house of victim party,
after the raasta and are of the same village. Therefore, under such
circumstances, even in less and dim light to identify the accused persons is
quite natural".

That apart it is not
even suggested by the defence that there was no moon light whatsoever on that
fateful night. For the aforesaid reasons, we find no merit in the contention
urged by the learned senior counsel for the appellants. The High Court has on
re-appreciation of the evidence concurred with that finding recorded by the
learned Sessions Judge. We are not inclined to 24 interfere with the
concurrent finding of fact arrived at by the Courts below.

15.No
other point is urged.

16.For
all the aforesaid reasons, we find no merit in this appeal. The appeal is
accordingly dismissed.